Re: [E-impact] Carbon-Intelligent Global Routing in Path-Aware Networks

> … with technology that reduces operational energy without making the service (noticeably) worse, or even improves both energy reduction and performance, all of these complications go away.
> There is a clear win, and there is no need to ponder which choice was better.

I agree, of course. But I'm not yet seeing how we can derive guidelines for protocol design and protocol operation, which is all that the IETF can actually do.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 11-May-23 15:18, Dom Robinson wrote:
> 100% agree Michael.
> 
> -- 
> Dom Robinson
> www.id3as.co.uk <http://www.id3as.co.uk/>
> www.greeningofstreaming.org <http://www.greeningofstreaming.org/>
> uk.linkedin.com/in/domrobinson <http://uk.linkedin.com/in/domrobinson>
> Meet >> https://calendly.com/id3as <https://calendly.com/id3as>
> 
>> On 10 May 2023, at 20:13, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>> On May 10, 2023, at 6:47 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11-May-23 06:56, Michael Welzl wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> On “induced traffic”:
>>>>> On May 10, 2023, at 2:50 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca <mailto:mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 2. How much reduction in service will society tolerate? (Example:
>>>>>> yesterday while waiting for a bus during a heavy rainstorm, I noticed
>>>>>> that the electronic sign at the bus stop had no data and displayed "Low
>>>>>> battery", because it was solar powered. Will society accept such
>>>>>> trade-offs, especially less trivial ones?)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that this is really a very important point.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the effect of the next-stop information being absent from the bus shelter,
>>>>> because of a rainstorm, is that Brian takes his car, then it's an overall loss!
>>>
>>> Just to illustrate the complexity of such arguments, what I actually did was
>>> take out my cell phone to check the next bus arrival. So add that into the
>>> energy balance.
>>
>> I agree that these arguments are complex. I do want to point out something simple, though:
>> - ignoring “embodied” energy,
>> - avoiding trade-offs,
>>
>> … with technology that reduces operational energy without making the service (noticeably) worse, or even improves both energy reduction and performance, all of these complications go away.
>> There is a clear win, and there is no need to ponder which choice was better.
>>
>> I don’t say that the other arguments are not interesting (or *perhaps* useful) to have, but I do suggest that we focus a little bit more on the above, if possible.
>> This also lets us do what we engineers can do, instead of bravely venturing off into foreign fields of society and economy and politics and whatnot.
>>
>> Is it enough? I don’t know - but it’s the thing that we can certainly do.  Again, *perhaps* we can do more by taking a broader stance, I don’t want to try to stifle a fun debate - I just wanted to point out that there is also this easier (albeit more limited) angle.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
>>
>> -- 
>> E-impact mailing list
>> E-impact@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e-impact